KVR Audio

Ogg Vorbis · Post by **Ogg Vorbis** » Fri May 08, 2009 10:48 pm

What is the difference between them?

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Fri May 08, 2009 10:49 pm

Length

debra1rlo · Post by **debra1rlo** » Fri May 08, 2009 10:52 pm

Rock vs. Classical???? Genre fight!!!! It's ONNNN!!!!

lumcas · Post by **lumcas** » Fri May 08, 2009 11:12 pm

well, they share much in common. There has been plenty of mediocre music since day one, but in classical most of it has already been forgotten. Do you really mean your question mate?

Max Headroom · Post by **Max Headroom** » Sat May 09, 2009 8:37 am

Well going with some generalizations here, you could say say classical pieces are usually longer.

Classical pieces have more melodic variety within a single work.

Classical pieces have more structural variety within a single work. Rather than sticking to some variation of verse-chorus-verse-chorus, they are more flowing and progressive.

Classical pieces use a wider range of instruments within a single work.(Although modern pop does employ a huge variety of sounds, especially thanks to synthesizers.)

Classical pieces usually rely on the strength of the music alone, while pop relies mostly on the vocals/lyrics.

I'm sure you could find exceptions to all these, but I'd say for the most part they hold true.

Ogg Vorbis · Post by **Ogg Vorbis** » Sun May 10, 2009 12:07 am

Seems as though what we're saying is that there is nothing ESSENTIAL which causes some music to be either "classical" or "pop". That seems counter intuitive, but maybe it's correct.

Jafo · Post by **Jafo** » Sun May 10, 2009 12:55 am

Depends on how anal you are about V7-I.

loose snare · Post by **loose snare** » Sun May 10, 2009 1:11 am

Answer 1

Wikipedia etcetera.....

Answer 2

They are terms of reference rather than strict definition.

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Sun May 10, 2009 2:27 am

well, Classical decribes a period in time. pop is forever!

big c

Ogg Vorbis · Post by **Ogg Vorbis** » Sun May 10, 2009 3:14 pm

vurt wrote:well, Classical decribes a period in time. pop is forever!

big c

What about the classical pieces written this month?

danbroad · Post by **danbroad** » Sun May 10, 2009 3:19 pm

In the one genre, the stars were mostly a bunch of drug-addled, psychedelic geniuses who lived hard, partied like it was the end of the world, and generally died young.

And in the other Genre, you have Keith Richards, who's done everything in the list above except one...

rifftrax · Post by **rifftrax** » Sun May 10, 2009 3:36 pm

nuffink wrote:Length

I would only say depending on how you classify a "song" from the classical era however. You could look at movements being each their own song in essence much the same as one concerto or opera (such as Wagner's Ring Cycle) can essentially be seen as an entire 'album'.

rifftrax · Post by **rifftrax** » Sun May 10, 2009 3:45 pm

Max Headroom wrote:Well going with some generalizations here, you could say say classical pieces are usually longer.

Classical pieces have more melodic variety within a single work.

Classical pieces have more structural variety within a single work. Rather than sticking to some variation of verse-chorus-verse-chorus, they are more flowing and progressive.

Not necessarily true at all. Consider rondos, minuet and trio, sonata, and theme and variation forms. Much of each particular period (especially earlier Baroque and 'Classical') used very similar chord progressions and cadences (how many times have you listened to a Baroque piece only to hear it end the exact same way as 500 other Baroque pieces...) The overwhelming majority of music in those eras created by minor composers was just as bewilderingly boring as the pop stuff today. People don't realize that we only listen to the genius' - Wagner/Haydn/Liszt/Bach/Beethoven/Mozart/Schumann/Shubert/Chopin/etc.

Go listen to the boring unknown classical stuff. You'd be suprised. It's sucks. Really bad. People are no more or less talented/inventive/fresh in general today than 300 years ago. We only consider it to be so. Bad assumption.

Max Headroom wrote:Classical pieces use a wider range of instruments within a single work.(Although modern pop does employ a huge variety of sounds, especially thanks to synthesizers.)

I don't know why this would be considered true either considering the wealth of chamber works a lack of orchestral works involving every single part of the orchestra simultaneously. In fact - considering the continuing expansion of eastern culture (and really any for that matter) into general Americana and any other part of the world we now have more access to more instruments than anyone else in any other time in history has had.

Max Headroom wrote:Classical pieces usually rely on the strength of the music alone, while pop relies mostly on the vocals/lyrics.

Ignoring such minor things as operas and choral works...

Acid Mitch · Post by **Acid Mitch** » Sun May 10, 2009 4:17 pm

Ogg Vorbis wrote:
vurt wrote:well, Classical decribes a period in time. pop is forever!

big c
What about the classical pieces written this month?

Do you mean classical or orchestral ?

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Sun May 10, 2009 4:20 pm

rifftrax wrote:
nuffink wrote:Length
I would only say depending on how you classify a "song" from the classical era however. You could look at movements being each their own song in essence much the same as one concerto or opera (such as Wagner's Ring Cycle) can essentially be seen as an entire 'album'.

I meant the length. Nobody ever got laid to Wagner.

Pop vs. Classical Music